Bonilla
- Phyllis Hamilton
- 4:25-cv-07008
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Bonilla v. Thompson, Judge Hamilton dismissed multiple civil-rights lawsuits with prejudice because Bonilla was barred from proceeding without paying fees and the suits were independently barred.
Steven Wayne Bonilla’s multiple civil-rights cases were dismissed with prejudice. The order also affected the federal judges, state judges, and state courts named as defendants by directing that the cases be closed and that further submissions in them be returned without filing.
What happened
In Steven Wayne Bonilla v. Judge Jeffrey A. Thompson and others, Bonilla, a state prisoner proceeding without a lawyer, filed multiple nearly identical civil-rights lawsuits against federal judges, state judges, and state courts. He sought relief concerning his conviction and the handling of his other cases.
The court ruled that Bonilla could not proceed without paying the required filing fees because he had previously been disqualified from that status and had not shown an imminent danger of serious physical injury when he filed the complaints. The court also said that, even if he had been allowed to proceed without paying fees, legal rules barred the lawsuits.
Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton dismissed the cases with prejudice, terminated all pending motions, and directed the clerk to close the cases and return any further documents Bonilla submitted in them without filing them. The court also rejected the suggestion that the judge’s impartiality could reasonably be questioned based on the filings.
The detailed version
- Bonilla · No. 4:25-cv-07008
- Phyllis Hamilton
- Aug. 26, 2025
Background
Steven Wayne Bonilla, a state prisoner, filed multiple nearly identical complaints under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the federal civil-rights statute used for certain claims against government officials. He represented himself in these cases. The defendants included various federal judges, state judges, and state courts. The complaints sought relief concerning Bonilla’s underlying conviction or the handling of his other state and federal cases.
The order states that Bonilla had a pending federal petition challenging his imprisonment with appointed counsel and was also represented by counsel in state proceedings. The court also noted his extensive history of filing similar cases.
Filing-fee status and legal bars
The court ruled that Bonilla had been disqualified from proceeding without paying the filing fee under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), unless he showed that he was in imminent danger of serious physical injury when he filed the complaint. The allegations did not show such danger, so he could not proceed without paying the filing fee.
The court further ruled that, even if an application to proceed without paying the fee had been granted, the lawsuits would still be barred under the legal rules identified in the order: Heck v. Humphrey, Younger v. Harris, Demos v. U.S. District Court, and Mullis v. U.S. Bankruptcy Court. The order did not resolve the underlying claims on their merits.
Ruling
The court dismissed the cases with prejudice. It directed the clerk to terminate all pending motions and close the cases, and to return without filing any further documents Bonilla submitted in those closed cases.
The court also addressed Bonilla’s naming of Judge Hamilton as a defendant in three of the cases. It ruled that the repetitive and frivolous nature of the filings did not provide a basis to reasonably question the judge’s impartiality. Judge Hamilton signed the order on August 26, 2025.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.